$25 to rent the movie, one watch within max 24 hours after you start watching it… Or $5 more to own it. Scammers.

  • zoostation@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Personally I prefer theaters so I think that price is high, yes. But rentals also used to be less convenient because the wait was longer and the TVs were lower quality.

    • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reduced wait time I think is the only real leg to stand on. It arguably doesn't make sense to undermine theatre ticket sales by making it cheaper at home, although I'd argue that it should be that the theatre option is the premium option that should cost more while home streaming is the cheap option if you don't want or need the theatre experience which should make it a complimentary income source to ticket sales not a threat to it but I guess they reckon they'll make them both cost the same until the cinema run is over so they never make less than a full theatre ticket price until then.

      I hate how things being convenient means they have to cost more. "Convenience fees" are such a crock. If it cost them more to offer the convenience over their usual service, but they don't run video stores any more and this has arguably less overhead than the renting physical media business did so it should be cheaper for everyone and yet instead they contrive additional expense on top because they made it convenient.